The revelation of Jannik Sinner’s anti-doping violation has stirred strong feelings in the world of tennis.
On Tuesday it was confirmed that Sinner had tested positive for the banned substance clostebol earlier this year. A drug that is prohibited at all times under Section One of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List. The world No.1 said he tested positive for the substance after his physio, Giacomo Naldi, used Trofodermin (which contained clostebol) for a cut on his little finger. It was argued that Naldi unintentionally transmitted the prohibited substance from his hands when treating Sinner. The tennis star suffers from psoriasiform dermatitis on his feet, which causes small cuts or sores and at the time his physio wasn’t wearing gloves when treating him.
The possibility of such a transmission occurring has previously been proven by a 2020 study conducted at the Federazione Medico Sportiva Italiana (FMSI) which concluded that a positive doping test can occur after ‘a single transdermal administration of 5 mg of clostebol acetate and a transient contact with the application area.‘ Trofodermin can be brought in pharmacies across Italy and there is less regulation on the item there compared to other countries.
Sinner was provisionally suspended for two brief periods from 4 April until 5 April and then again between 17 April and 20 April. Both of those suspensions were overturned due to a successful appeal. The two periods represent the two times his urine sample detected the banned substance. During an independent tribunal that was conducted last week, it was ruled that Sinner was of ‘no fault or negligence.’
The case has triggered mixed responses, especially from those who have experienced what it is like dealing with The International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA). Tara Moore served a 19-month doping ban before being cleared of any wrongdoing and spent more than £200,000 trying to clear her name.
“I guess only the top players’ images matter. I guess only the independent tribunal’s opinion on the top players is takenas sound and right. Yet they question them in my case. Just makes no sense,” Moore wrote on social media network X.
Liam Broady also commented about the speed of Sinner’s case compared to other players.
“Whether Sinner was doping or not. This is not right. Plenty of players go through the same thing and have to wait months or YEARS for their innocence to be declared. Not a good look.” He wrote.
Finally, Cagla Buyukakcay was another player to raise concerns about double standards. The Turk was suspended from the Tour for eight months for a failed doping test before proving that it was caused by eating contaminated meat.
“Losing your job, reputation, ranking, health due to anxiety and stress and overwhelming financial burden is the most grueling process for an athlete can endure. It’s incredibly unfair when some are treated differently under the same rules.” She said.
Making sense of Sinner’s case
Given Sinner’s profile in the world of tennis and the allegations of double standards, Ubitennis spoke with somebody with a solid understanding of tennis’ anti-doping process. Richard Ings was head of the ATP’s Anti-Doping Program from 2001 to 2005 before becoming the CEO of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority from 2005 to 2010.
One of the biggest questions raised is why did it take so long to publically confirm the provisional suspensions?
“I read the decision and the rules were followed to the letter. Sinner was provisionally suspended. His lawyers lodged a same-day appeal for urgent lifting of the provisional suspension based on evidence he had no fault. An expedited hearing in such cases is a feature of the rules.” Ings explains.
“An arbitrator heard the appeal and handed down his decision to lift the suspension. No announcement can be made under the rules now until the matter is heard in full by a tribunal. So he can play.
“The tribunal reviewed the full case of evidence and found Sinner had no fault. So no suspension was imposed. But he automatically loses points and prize money at the first even he tested positive at. That is mandatory even if you are found to have absolutely no fault for the positive so the rules were perfectly followed.”
Ings point out that this matter took place outside of the ATP’s jurisdiction and therefore they had no play in the process.
“This matter has nothing to do with the ATP. The ITIA takes the sample and prosecutes the case. Sports Resolution convenes the training and arbitrators. The ATP is not involved by design. Nor is the ITF.” He said.
“It’s normally quite tough for a player to find the source (that causes a positive result) but in this case, it was obvious and supportable. He had a compelling case for no fault. But it’s still cost him half a million plus all this negative press and locker room barbs.” Ings added.
There are also concerns about misinformation. For example, on social media, there are claims that Trofodermin isn’t used to treat cuts which which is incorrect.
There are questions about Sinner’s former physio and if any action should be taken against him. If the tennis star had brought Trofodermin and used it himself, he would likely be found at fault and given some form of ban based on previous cases of other athletes doing the same.
“I’d be asking the player what becomes of the trainer. The trainer’s actions cost Sinner over half a million dollars, including lawyers,” Ings commented.
As for the wider picture, he acknowledges lower ranked players on the Tour would face more challenges if they was to be in a similar situation.
“The key observation here is resources. Sinner clearly has the resources to get the best lawyers to draft a same-day request for an expedited hearing. A less well-resourced player would struggle to do that.” He concluded.
Sinner has not spoken to reporters about his case so far but has issued a statement. However, he will face questions this weekend at the US Open when he takes part in the pre-tournament media day.
